Читать книгу Hardwired Humans - Andrew O'Keeffe - Страница 9

This instinct helps explain why:

 my boss keeps me waiting but never keeps their own boss waiting

 status symbols keep popping up

 technical professionals with little interest in the ‘people stuff ‘ still accept a promotion to manager

 powerful people can do strange things.

IT WAS LIKE THE PLOT out of a bad movie. In November 2008 the CEOs of the three uS automotive companies (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) went to Washington seeking government funds to keep their organisations out of possible bankruptcy. Despite the desperate state of their businesses driving them to beg for money, they each flew in and out of Washington in corporate luxury jets. Not a good look.

On one level their behaviour was just plain dumb. On another level it reveals a significant human dimension that not just one, but all three no doubt highly intelligent leaders demonstrated such astonishing behaviour that was so out of touch with the moment.

The three CEOs arriving in their $36M aircraft at a round trip cost of 70 times more than a commercial flight begins to make sense if we look through the lens of power and status. The thought of taking a commercial flight like everyone else was obviously something they couldn’t contemplate, and even if their advisors were brave enough to suggest it, the advice was obviously rejected. Yet still they didn’t get it. From the frosty reception they received, one would presume that the CEOs would make a wiser choice next time. Well, hardly. The second time they travelled to Washington they went in hybrid vehicles, still wanting to differentiate themselves from ordinary folk. While we might marvel at their insensitive behaviour, it can be explained if we understand the tendencies of those who hold high-power positions.

Power is central to the functioning of human groups. Human groups function because of hierarchy. The same is true of chimpanzees. Chimps are hierarchical animals, meaning that within their community there is a pecking order. In chimp society the top of the hierarchy is occupied by a male, the so-called alpha male.

Lubutu, the current alpha male of the chimps at Taronga Zoo, became the alpha at the young age of eight years. He was the oldest male at the time when Gombe, the then alpha, died. Lubutu’s acclimatisation to power gives first time leaders some valuable lessons. When Lubutu became the alpha he appeared to lack confidence. His leadership style was best described as passive. He did not exert the appropriate power of his position and he refused to intervene in squabbles amongst members of his community; he would literally look the other way! Like the experience of many a first-time leader, some of the members of his community supported his ‘appointment’ and some didn’t. One of the females, Shiba, for instance refused to accept him as alpha, indicated by her refusal to submit to him—she refused to be dominated by him. He was still just a boy, so he didn’t have the physical strength to back himself and exert his position. But as he physically matured he grew into his role and appeared more comfortable in using the power of his position. Now almost ten years in the role, he has grown into a very constructive leader who uses power appropriately to the apparent benefit of his community—the Taronga group is a productively reproducing, reasonably harmonious group that replicates behaviours typical of wild chimps.

Lubutu’s key leadership strategy is to be friendly to the females and their offspring. He invests time in grooming sessions with the females. He lets the infants play with him and spends time with the teenagers. Consequently, the females (the majority of his community) appear to like Lubutu. Certainly they get to show their preference for him over the rival males.

One day in August 2009 Lubutu was temporarily absent from his ‘organisation’. Lubutu’s absence reminded me of a conversation with a HR director when she told me what happens when her CEO is away from the office on business trips: ‘When our CEO is away the executives go feral!’

Lubutu had gone to the vet for a vasectomy. He was out of the community for a mere half day. But that’s long enough for aspirational males to take advantage. Beta male, Shabani, seemed to rejoice in his good fortune to have Lubutu out of the way. When Lubutu did return to the exhibit he was no doubt uncomfortable from the operation. Shabani, presumably sensing his discomfort, displayed aggressively over Lubutu who had a reduced capacity to fight back. With hair hackled in a fierce display, Shabani screamed at Lubutu then chased the weakened alpha and, when he caught him, bashed him.

Lubutu may have thought his days as alpha were over as he hung on by a thread late into the afternoon. With night approaching, the 19 chimps filed into their night den. What happened next is fascinating and reveals the benefits of Lubutu’s friendly leadership style. Shabani is habitually and unpredictably aggressive, often attacking the females and infants to force his will. In the night den the female chimps expressed their preference for their leader by gathering around Lubutu and groomed him reassuringly. They turned their backs to Shabani who was ostracised like an unwelcome stranger. By the next day Lubutu had regained his strength, was still the alpha and continued the unending task of holding the top job.

This demonstration of support by the chimp community might explain Dr Goodall’s observation that constructive alphas usually endure as leaders for around ten years, but bullying and intimidating alpha males tend to last for only about two years.

One of the most constructive leaders of the Gombe chimps was Figan, and the one who appeals to me as the standout leader over these 50 years of Gombe research. When Dr Goodall and I met in late 2008 I was keen to hear more about Figan and she added to what I already knew from her books. Figan was alpha in the late 1970s and early 80s and one of the most powerful males Dr Goodall has observed (he also had the support of his brother, Faben, so anyone who challenged Figan had to be prepared to take on both brothers in coalition). Figan’s outstanding attribute was that he used his power constructively and did not bully or intimidate his community (at least relatively speaking for an alpha chimp). But he did use his power to insist on appropriate behaviour. As Dr Goodall wrote, ‘I suspect that many would-be aggressors, anticipating the displeasure of their boss, exercised more self-restraint when he was around.’

The observed outcome of Figan’s leadership style is persuasive. Dr Goodall writes that his style ‘helped to promote and maintain an atmosphere of social harmony among the members of his group’. During Figan’s reign most of his interactions with members of his community were relaxed and friendly. ‘He was so clearly dominant over them that, except when there were moments of tension such as during a reunion, he had no need for violent demonstrations of strength and mastery.’

Not all alpha male chimps are as constructive as Figan in the way they exercise power. Figan’s nephew, Frodo, became alpha male some years later. Frodo was one aggressive alpha, leading through bullying and intimidation.

When I asked Dr Goodall about Frodo, she replied that he always showed the personality of a bully. Even as a youngster, when the other young chimps his age were playing and saw Frodo approach, they would suspend their game because they knew the tyrant was about to destroy their fun. The bully of a kid grew up to be a bully of a leader.

Power is a natural dimension to life for hierarchical social animals. It comes with the domain. The challenge for leaders is to use power effectively. This means using just the right amount of power that is appropriate for your position. We will come back to this and other implications for leaders later. First, we need to discuss the importance of social standing for humans—our standing in the pecking order.

Social standing

With so much riding on our position in the hierarchy, it is little wonder that we place such an emphasis on signs of our social standing and so much energy on progressing in our social group. Social standing, or status in the hierarchy, explains a number of curious behaviours in organisations.

Hierarchy and status explains who keeps who waiting. The team leader might keep a staff member or external supplier waiting yet would not keep their CEO waiting for a second. The CEO might keep a lower level manager waiting, yet this same executive would not dream of doing the same to a Board member. That’s life for social primates. We can of course choose to treat people equally and not keep lower ranking people waiting! They’ll appreciate it.

Hierarchy and status explains why people who have their own office often fight and scream against any move into open-plan design. And it’s why, when forced into an open-plan configuration, some might collect bigger and better pot plants than their neighbours … or they gain the preferred position by the window … or mysteriously procure a leather chair … or sit closer to the Director (who retained their office).

Hierarchy and status explains why in organisational life we naturally tend to have grades and job titles, and along with the instinct of contest and display, it’s why people can be touchy about job titles—especially how their title compares with their peers.

Early in my career I worked as a human resources officer in a manufacturing firm. At the factory there were two car parking areas—one for managers and one for the workers. The managers’ car park was located, not surprisingly, in the privileged position alongside the office block. The employees’ car park was at the edge of the site. Being an eager young HR professional, I had in mind that it would be a grand sign of equality if we removed the managers’ car park.

When one particular young and extremely capable engineering manager heard about my proposal he quickly sought me out. He’d only just gained access to the managers’ car park through a recent promotion and passionately argued to retain it. He enthusiastically made his point: ‘When I first joined this firm as an apprentice I had aspirations to progress. I would know that I had made it when I gained rights to park in the managers’ car park.’ The equivalent to Lubutu’s rock at Taronga Zoo.

Years later, armed with the insight of instincts, I could see his point. It doesn’t mean that there is not a case for egalitarian leadership. It does mean, though, that try as we might to remove symbols of position in the pecking order, they will keep popping up. And any opportunities to progress in our social group are generally extremely motivating.

Hierarchy provides a vital function for complex social animals. It provides the means by which social animals can live and function. Human groups are able to coordinate their efforts because of hierarchy. This applies to work organisations, to church groups, to sporting groups and to political parties. The largest organisation in the world is reportedly the Chinese army with 1 million people and a human group that size can still function—because of hierarchy.

Political parties are a useful study because they are so on display. If hierarchical power is not clearly in the hands of a single dominant individual, then the political party is weakened until that situation is resolved. In the Primaries leading up to the 2008 uS Presidential elections, the Democrat Party had two primary contenders in Senators Obama and Clinton. For the time that the candidature was unresolved the party was divided into two factions. There was rumour and innuendo directed from one candidate to another. There were coalitions and alliances. And the situation continued until Senator Obama pulled away as the preferred candidate and then the party was able to settle its differences and unite. Senator Hillary and ex-President Bill Clinton swung behind candidate Obama. The party became united and the single leader had the power and authority to harness the resources and energy for the campaign.

For organisations, it is reassuring for leaders to know that the natural and necessary pattern is that people work for a manager, the manager in turn works for a boss and on up to the CEO. This reporting hierarchy, formalising the pecking order, allows organisations to function. But it also means that if each leader does not deliver what they need to at their level then the organisation will rapidly become dysfunctional.

Indicators of power

A key aspect underpinning hierarchy and status is the dimension of power differences in groups. In making sense of hierarchy and status in organisations, it’s handy to know the behaviours that are typically displayed by people with high power or low power.

Researchers from Stanford university and the university of California studied the positive and negative indicators of power. They found ‘striking differences in how powerful and less powerful individuals perceive and act within the social environment’. They hypothesised that elevated power provides rewards and freedoms while reduced power is associated with increased threat and punishment.

They listed the attitudes and behaviours typical of powerful people. Some are positive and some are negative. Not all leaders in high-power positions demonstrate these behaviours, but the research revealed the strong tendency for them to do so.

Positive implications of power

On the positive side, when people are in positions of relative power they are more likely to:

 initiate ideas and be more direct in their expression of ideas

 engage in group activity

 express approval and affection

 show more gestures and less facial construction

 display smiles of pleasure

 feel and display positive emotions.

negative implications of power

But when people are in positions of relative power, they are also more likely to:

 take what they want for themselves and be quicker at detecting material rewards

 treat any situation or person as a means of satisfying their own needs

 talk more, speak out of turn and interrupt more

 ignore what other people say and want

 ignore how less powerful people react to their behaviour

 act rudely and be more aggressive

 enter the social space of others

 tease and be more aggressive in their teasing

 stereotype others

 eat with their mouths open and get crumbs on their face and table!

Eating and leaving crumbs on their face and table? When I mentioned this one day to a group of business people on one of our zoo workshops, one participant laughed and told a story about her CEO who never interrupts his lunch routine but continues to eat ravenously, always makes a terrible mess of his chin, tie and table in apparent oblivion to his hungry visitor watching on.

The point behind these negatives is that high-power people can. They can talk when they want to even if that means interrupting others; they can detect and take rewards for themselves. Because they thought they could, the three CEOs of the uS automotive companies were preoccupied with their own interests—but got a rude shock when the reaction of the public reduced their chances of gaining government support.

Of course, we appreciate working for people who demonstrate the positive dimensions of power and who contain or avoid the negative tendencies of power.

Managing power in organisations

The famous Milgrim research is a sobering reminder to leaders of the power of their position. In 1974 Stanley Milgram conducted studies of positional power. One of his studies involved a ‘teacher’ administering electric shocks of increasing voltage to a ‘learner’ each time the learner made a mistake. The subjects, filling the role of teacher, believed that the experiment was a study of the effect of punishment on learning, when in fact it was a study of the influence of authority.

The individual subjects in the role of teacher were unaware that the learner subjects were actors who feigned the pain of the electric shocks. While the teachers hated what they were doing and pleaded with the researcher that they be allowed to stop, no teacher steadfastly refused to administer the shocks before the 300 volt level. Notwithstanding their anxiety, the teachers abided by the instruction to keep delivering the electric shocks. About two-thirds of the teachers pulled every one of the 30 shock switches up to the last switch (450 volts) until the researcher ended the experiment.

Milgrim explained that this was indicative of a deep-seated sense of duty that people have to those in authority and a reluctance not to defy the wishes of the boss.

Organisations with good cultures implement systems to constrain inappropriate use of power by managers. For ten years from the mid-80s I worked for IBM. Here was an organisation with effective systems to manage power. The systems constrained managers by equipping staff with ways to complain of alleged inappropriate use of power by leaders. The systems included open door reviews, anonymous ‘speak-ups’ and regular employee surveys. Leaders in the organisation knew that if they abused their power they would likely be found out and the issue addressed, including possibly being moved from their leadership role. There were consequences. Leaders were appropriately constrained.

Motivation to lead

A potential tension associated with the status drive explains why some people accept management roles but have little interest in the people aspects of their elevated job. The natural way to progress in the organisational hierarchy is through the management line. And not surprisingly, strong technical performers are naturally promoted to lead the team of technical professionals. The problem arises when people with little interest in leading are promoted. People without an interest in managing people might accept the manager role because it provides for them the desired elevation in their social group. It is often the fastest way up the pecking order. But while their status is enhanced, leaders with little interest in managing people will struggle with this key dimension of their job.

Professor Nicholson calls this interest in leading a ‘motivation to lead’. He points out that some people, through the make-up of their personality, just don’t have an interest in leading and that such folks should not be put in charge of other people.

Chimps, too, seem to vary in terms of individual interest in leading or not leading. Dr Goodall could see whether an individual male from a young age appeared to have the personal drive—the personality—to seek to be alpha.

When Figan was a youngster, Dr Goodall saw from his form of play that he had the personality to try to be the alpha. As a youngster, Figan was apparently impressed with how Mike rose to become the alpha. Mike, at the time the lowest ranked male, became skilled at using empty kerosene cans that were stacked near Dr Goodall’s camp at the time. Mike developed a technique of incorporating these cans into his dominance display and became so skilled using three cans as props that he rose through the ranks until he reached the alpha position. (We’ll come back to Mike’s display later.)

Like a human child kicking a soccer ball and imagining World Cup glory, young Figan practised using the cans. He was the only one that Dr Goodall observed playing with the cans. She would sometimes see him all alone, in a clearing in the jungle, skilling himself with the cans. He appeared to be readying himself for the contests he would need to take on as an adult. Years later he was ready to rise through the ranks and did so to become the alpha male.

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS INSTINCT FOR LEADERS

Here’s a snapshot of what we have learned about the instinct of hierarchy and status.

1 Hierarchy helps complex social animals function in their communities.

2 Progression in the pecking order is a strong motivator.

3 Leaders should have the most power in their group.

4 There are positive and negative tendencies associated with power.

5 The appropriate use of power is a key leadership dimension.

There are significant practical implications of hierarchy and status which, if incorporated into your toolkit, will make managing people easier.

Implication 1. Licence to lead

A reassuring implication of this instinct is that the natural order of human groups is to indeed have a leader. The leader has a licence to lead. Without leadership, human groups become dysfunctional.

Knowing that leaders have a licence to lead is of particular importance for first time managers and managers appointed from within their team. First time managers are often uncertain in their role. Hierarchy and status should give them confidence that the team wants them to lead. But if the leader doesn’t lead, someone else will assert themselves to fill the void.

Implication 2. Motivation to lead

We just covered the possible tension caused by a team leader who is driven by status to accept the job of leader but has little or no interest in doing the ‘people stuff ‘.

How appealing to you are the tasks outlined in Instinct 1 and repeated below? These are the people-leadership tasks that come with being the leader of a family-sized team:

 set direction for the team so people have context for their role

 connect the group to the rest of the organisation so they can see the value they deliver

 be an advocate for the team

 provide appropriate resources so people can succeed

 defend the team against unreasonable demands of others

 set goals so people have clarity in their role

 give feedback to help people learn and grow

 value people’s contribution

 provide an environment where people can progress to enhance their social standing

 take care in bringing new members into the team

 set the standards of behaviour and performance

 hold to account those who don’t work to those standards

 minimise rivalries, address any conflict within the team and ensure harmony.

It’s a demanding list. To repeat, the good news is that people want an effective leader. The bad news is that if the leader doesn’t deliver on these responsibilities, the group will become dysfunctional.

If the list of activities doesn’t appeal to a prospective team leader, they should either re-evaluate whether people management is for them or accept that they need to take an interest in providing these responsibilities to the team and acquire the skills to do so. Motivation alone to progress in the hierarchy is not enough.

Implication 3. Use of power

Power can be underused or overused.

Overuse of power by the boss can drive compliance. Most people want to keep in sweet with the boss. Why wouldn’t they? It’s the surest way to keep your job, get a pay rise and progress in the organisation. The trap to avoid is where the boss drives compliance by being dismissive of contrary views. The more sensitive the boss is to disagreement, the more people wisely avoid debate. As a consequence, the boss creates distance between themselves and their followers and denies themselves useful information.

underuse of power by the boss can drive confusion, ill-discipline and dis-harmony, where people are uncertain of the expectations and standards of the group. In this case, someone else will likely emerge as the actual leader in the boss’s place.

The leader’s goal is to use just the right amount of power for their level—not too much and not too little. Following the lead from Lubutu, a good dose of friendliness is a useful leadership strategy. If the leader is unfriendly then, being human, team members will respond by keeping out of harm’s way. It only takes one event of intimidation for people to keep their distance. A reassuring sign that people perceive their leader as friendly is whether they express disagreement when they hold a view different to their leader. They can only afford to do so if they hold no fear of retribution.

Implication 4. Allocation of resources

One of the ways leaders get to exercise power is in the allocation of resources. Leaders should be comfortable in doing so and in using this power thoughtfully. Resources have value if the item is valued by the receiver and the giver.

In the wild, chimps hunt meat. But they seem to hunt for social rather than nutritional reasons. For Dr Goodall’s Gombe chimps the most common prey is a red colobus monkey. For the energy expended for the meagre 1 kg of meat on a baby monkey, chimps would be better off foraging for nuts and fruit if the purpose was nutritional. But chimps appear to hunt for social reasons. A hunting party is most successful when there are between four and ten gang members. When a kill is made the prey is appropriated by the alpha male. The prey becomes a resource. At Gombe the alpha male shares the meat in a deliberate, consistent way—he gives a greater share to his allies and he ignores his rivals.

In organisational life there are a range of ‘resources’ that the boss gets to allocate. Just to name the most common: grades, promotions, appraisal ratings, salary reviews, bonuses, sales quotas and territories, projects, budgets, office space and development opportunities. use them well.

Implication 5. Three warnings by the silverback

A silverback gorilla provides a model in socially constructive discipline and maintaining acceptable standards of behaviour. A leader on one of our programs at Melbourne Zoo asked the keeper, ‘What does Rigo do if one of his group is misbehaving?’

The keeper, Damian Lewis, nodded knowingly. He tells how Rigo, the silverback, has a three-step warning process! His first step, the bottom of the disciplinary stage and the lightest touch, is just his mere presence. Damian described how two female gorillas were bickering, and Rigo strutted past them as though he just wanted his presence noted. That is usually enough to stop the offending behaviour. If that doesn’t work, his next warning is verbal—he coughs at the offending individual(s). That’s often as far as he needs to go in signalling his displeasure. The point of the escalating warnings is that the ultimate discipline, a physical reprimand such as a slap or a hit, is rarely required. However, if the short sharp cough doesn’t work, then the next step, just short of the ultimate leadership discipline, is a charging display. One hundred and sixty-five kilograms (363 lbs) of charging silverback generally works. But if not, on those rare occasions when steps one to three don’t work, Rigo will use his ultimate disciplinary act and hit the offender.

Maybe there is a natural pattern for social animals where ‘anti-social’ behaviour is corrected in an orderly fashion and ultimate acts (physical for gorillas and termination of employment for us in organisational life) is reserved for rare occasions when verbal and written warnings don’t do the trick. One can imagine the chaos, though, if Rigo either doesn’t use his position to stay on top of group standards or if he is too quick to race to the ultimate discipline act and misses out on the first few steps.

Implication 6. Social standing

After the wellbeing of our immediate family the second most important motivation for humans is our standing in our social group. The team leader has significant impact on the regard in which their people are held in the eyes of others, both within the team and in the wider organisation. It’s little wonder that 80% of people who resign from organisations do so because of an unsatisfactory relationship with their immediate manager.

To deliver on this key motivation a leader needs to provide their people with opportunities to grow and impress, to protect and enhance the reputations of individuals on the team and to acknowledge their achievements so confidence is enhanced.

Implication 7. Regular review meetings

The single most important technique that I recommend to leaders is to hold regular individual reviews with their people. This means scheduling an hour’s review no less frequently than once every two weeks with each of their direct reports. A meeting lasting less than one hour is unlikely to cover the subjects that should be covered. In Instinct 7 on Empathy we cover this topic in more detail and include a possible agenda for the reviews.

Implication 8. Making sense of the matrix

Anyone who has managed within a matrix will know its complexity. In case you are not familiar with matrix reporting (and you’re fortunate if you don’t operate within this structure) it means that a person reports to two bosses, where one boss is the business unit or functional boss and the other boss is perhaps the location manager. The business unit boss is often based at a different location to his or her direct reports. The structure expects us to be part of two teams and to attend to the requirements of both bosses.

This dual reporting is unnatural for humans, as it would be for chimps. Our natural pattern, being an animal where a pecking order is natural, is that we screen for a single line of reporting based on power. A key issue with matrix reporting is that it denies reality (we will discuss the instinct of confidence before realism in Instinct 8). Expecting people to report to two bosses is unrealistic. The real line of power is the boss who has the control of resources (budgets and headcount) and the primary financial reporting responsibility. People work this out incredibly quickly.

The person primarily frustrated in the matrix is the less powerful boss, for example the location boss. This person is trying to fulfill their responsibilities as the location executive, but they have little or no formal power to cause others to respect their power and to abide by the normal reporting protocols. The location manager might even have trouble insisting that people attend location meetings.

Given that you are probably not the designer of the organisation, an implication for a leader working in a matrix is to be aware of your natural tendency to focus on only one line of reporting (the boss who has the control of resources) so that you deliver in a leadership sense what your organisation needs of you right now. In this situation you need to be a balanced member of two teams.

Implication 9. Managing up and down

In my book, The Boss, one of the characters makes the observation that managers tend to be good at either managing up or managing down, but rarely both. Staff members are quick to spot if their boss prioritises managing up.

A leader good at managing up will tend to:

 focus most on the needs of their superiors

 spend a disproportionate amount of time grooming their boss and other people higher in the hierarchy

 probably sit close to their boss’s office even if that means being further away from their people

 demand outputs from their people with insufficient resources

 be prepared to compromise the team’s interests to protect their own

 avoid challenging the system.

These behaviours erode the loyalty of their people. But it does mean that the leader is probably well connected with people in power, which will be of some benefit to the team (and may well enhance the leader’s chances of progressing in the hierarchy).

A leader good at managing down will tend to:

 focus most on the needs of their people

 spend a fair amount of time with the team

 sit close to them

 give them resources

 protect them from unreasonable demands

 challenge the system where necessary

 decline to turn a blind-eye.

While the team will appreciate their style, the downside is that such a leader might be seen by people higher in the organisation as difficult.

In many organisational cultures, it is difficult for a leader to be good at managing both up and down. The ability to do so, apart from the leader’s own bias, will be driven by the culture of those in the high-power positions and whether those people are easy to please and expect managers to be effective at leading their people. Politics for social animals can be quite a challenge!

So far we have covered how humans live. Together, the first two instincts describe a species that lives in hierarchical social groups. We have covered how leaders can use that natural orientation to make their job as a leader easier and more successful. The remaining chapters can be categorised as instincts that reflect the way humans think and feel. They relate to how we process information, how we make decisions and, in an evolutionary sense, how we make ourselves attractive to a member of the opposite sex as a potential mate. We’ll build up the picture as we go.